IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 175 OF 2023 (Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated.17.03.2023 made in A.S No.27 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. District Judge, Bhimqavaram, Preferred against the Decree in O.A. No.4 of 2012 dated.20.04.2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram) Between; 1. Ganisetti Sitaramayya, S/o. Paparao Hindu aged 61 years, Male Cultivation, Resident of Palapu Street, D.No.3-26/1 Kalla Village, Kalla Mandal, BJCJC. Ganisetti Ravi Prasad, S/o. Sitaramayya aged 45 years Male Cultivation, Resident of Palapu Street D.No.3-26/1 Kalla Village,Kalla Mandal, BJCJC. Gokisetti Padmavathi, W/o. Veera Swamy Hindu Aged 38 years. House Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna 2. 3. Wife Female, R/o. Komallipudi Village District. ...APPELLANTS AND Ambati Lakshmi Kumari, W/o.Naga Venkata Seshagiri Rao, Chanamilli House, Wife Female, R/o. Chanamilli Village D.No. 48/3B, Nidamarru Mandal TPG JCJC ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants : SRI P R. K. AMARENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT s •r a ; 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO ^,.X^ Second Appeal No.175 of 2023 c. JuMqment: •t • frv. •rv This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2?!P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 11.03.2023 in A.S.No.27 of 2018, on the file of the III Additional District Judge BhS^avaram (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 20.04.2018 in O.S.No.4 of 2012, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram (“Trial Court” for short). f *• V ( t 1 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2012, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. ( 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.4 of 2012 with a prayer for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit preliminarily without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsubcessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.27 of 2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby the defendants in the said suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. > 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.4 of 2012, is as follows; The 1^‘ defendant is father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. The St plaintiff and 3'^'^ defendant are daughters whereas 2"'^ defendant is son of 1 2 VGKR, J. sa_175 2023 1 defendant. 1®‘ defendant performed the marriage of plaintiff in August, 1997 ' without any dowry or gifts and that she left with her husband with clean hands. The 1 defendant has got ancestrai properties and out of them he purchased some other properties. The 1 defendant, his mother and his brother partitioned their ancestral properties by virtue of a registered partition deed, out of them 1®* defendant properties which dated 04.02.2004, vide Document No.350 of 2004, got ‘B’ schedule properties in the said partition. The ancestral were acquired under partition by defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. The piaintiff is aiso one of the co-sharers in the joint family properties, I entitled to 1/4’^ share in the plaint schedule even she got married and that she is properties and that she placed the matter before the elders for which 1®' defendant not accepted for partition, a legal notice, dated 21.08.2010 Then the plaintiff got issued and 1 defendant received the same, but he did not respond and that the plaintiff iIS constrained to file the suit for partition. 7. The 1 defendant filed written statement before the was adopted by the 2^'" defendant. The brief statement are as follows; trial Court and the averments in the written same The marriage of the plaintiff and defendant 2008 respectively by the 1 ^' defendant by spending huge presented lanchanums. The 1®' defendant paid cash of Rs.9,00,000/- in two installments out of the joint family properties towards the that the plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in IR.S.No.198/1A of Chanamilli village by virtue of sale deed, dated 16.07.2001 with the amount presented by the 1®‘ defendant for Rs.3,00,000/- in 2004. had given remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by selling Ac. 1-20 cents of land, which is part and parcel of plaint ‘D' schedule properties, with the said amount, the plaintiff purchased Ac.2-00 performed in 1997 and amounts and also share of plaintiff and The 1®’ defendant cents of land at Chanamilli in the name of Ambati Naga Venkata Seshagiri Rao, who is husband of plaintiff, 1®* 3 VGKR, J. sa 175 2023 defendant settled Ac. 1-05 >2 cents of wet land, which is part and parcel of Item N0.I of plaint schedule property to 3^^ defendant in the year 2008 towards his share in the joint family properties. The 1®‘ defendant gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2'"'^ defendant out of the remaining sale consideration towards his share in joint family properties. As per the oral partition in between plaintiff and defendants, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties and with the consent of the 1 defendant is residing along with him in Item N0.I of the plaint schedule properties and 1®' defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of Items A to C of plaint schedule properties with absolute rights and has been paying taxes. Though the plaintiff is eldest daughter of defendant, she neglected to look after the welfare of 1"* defendant and his wife. Since the properties were partitioned orally, neither the plaintiff nor defendant Nos.2 and 3, have any share in ‘A to C’ schedule properties and there is no joint status in between them and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule properties. On receipt of legal notice, dated 21.08.2010 from the plaintiff, 1®’ defendant questioned for which she convinced that she issued notice by mistake and that he did not give any reply notice. nd defendant, the 2 8. The O'"* defendant remained set ex parte in the suit proceedings. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds as prayed for? (2) To what relief? 10. D^uri^ the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the 4 fs VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 marked. were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 were 11. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial on consideration of oral and preliminarily without unsuccessful defendants filed the . . Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram wherein, the following point came up for consideration: on hearing the documentary costs. Felt appeal suit in arguments of both sides and evidence on record decreed the suit aggrieved thereby, the A.S.No.27 of 2023 mother the judgment of the trial Court Justified if so, it requires any Interference with sufficient reasons, or not? 12. The learned First Appellate Judge answered the points after hearing the as above, against the defendants appeal filed by them by confirming the decree trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the arguments, and dismissed the and judgment passed by the same, the defendants in O.S.No.4 of 2012 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing both sides appeal, on 03.05.2023, this Court framed counsel at the time of admission of the the following substantial question of law; Whether the judgment and decree below is not contrary to law in holding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the share in the suit schedule property by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the absence of any finding to the effect that the suit schedule appellant acquired through 3 lineal descendants schedule property has acquired the status of property being the ancestral property of the and that the suit being coparcenary property”. 5 VGKR, J. sa 175 2023 14. Heard Sri Yellabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel, representing Sri P.R.K. Amerandra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 15. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. erroneous in a case of tJhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh\ the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature." In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar^ the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 16. In a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is normally not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record. It shall not reverse the findings of both the Courts below except was AIR 1993 SC 398 ^ AIR 1999 SC 471 VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 under few situations. In the case on hand, both the Courts below came to a concurrent finding and decreed the suit for partition. As stated supra , in a second appeal, this Court shall not reverse the findings of both the Courts below except under few situations, if it is found that the material and relevant evidence are not considered by the First Appellate would have lead to an opposite conclusion i Court and if considered it one instance where this Court is entitled to interfere. The other situation is when the findings of the facts arrived by the First Appellate Court by placing evidence, which if it was omitted IS were reliance on inadmissible an appropriate conclusion was possible. It on another occasion also this Court can interfere. It is also relevant to if the judgment of both the Courts below IS say that are contrary to mandatory provisions of the law applicable to the of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible. case, then also an interference under Section 100 17. The undisputed facts of both the parties are the plaintiff and 3'^^ defendant are daughters of 1^‘ defendant whereas ^ the 2^^^ defendant is son of 1* defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant partitioned the ancestral properties with his mother and brother under a registered partition 1"* defendant got ‘B’ schedule property in the said partition and the ancestral properties which deed, dated 04.02.2004 and out of them were acquired under partition by 1®' defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 1"‘ defendant acquired the plaint schedule property under a registered partitioned deed prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 undisputed fact that prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are born and the relationship of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 with 1 . It is also 2005 itself. defendant is also not in dispute. Before the trial Court, the 1®^ defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the 2"*^ defendant by filing a memo and the 3'"^ defendant remained set ex parte. The contention of the 1®‘ defendant/1®' Item A to C^schedule properties are separate properties of 1 appellant is that “ defendant and 7 VGKR, J. sa 175 2023 not joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and there is no joint family between plaintiff and defendants. 18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.1, registered partition deed, dated 22.01.2004. It is specific case of the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 the 1®‘ defendant, his mother and his brother partitioned ancestral properties, out of them, the 1®’ defendant got plaint schedule property herein which is ‘B’ schedule property in Ex.B.1 and in Ex.A.1 registered partition deed, the plaint schedule properties are ‘B’ schedule property. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 shows that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties. Ex.A.1 registered partition deed, dated 04.02.2004 vide document No.350/2004 is not at all disputed by defendants. D.W.2 i.e., 2^^ defendant admitted in his evidence that under Ex.A.1 his father got an extent of Ac.4-66 cents which was not partitioned among himself and his father. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Courts below committed a mistake by ignoring Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act and the plaintiff is not entitled any share in the plaint schedule properties, since the partition was effected in between 1 defendant with his mother and brother prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. St Section 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reiterated as follows; “Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.” Admittedly, in the case on hand, no registered partition was happened in between 1®* defendant and his son i.e., 2''^ defendant prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and no decree for partition is obtained by the plaintiff and 1®‘ defendant prior to 20.12.2004. There is no pleading in the written statement of 1®‘ defendant that there was a registered partition or a decree of partition in between 1®' defendant and his children prior to Hindu.-Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 or subsequent to Hindu 8 VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 % Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. between 1®‘ defendant and his mother and was effected in between 1^' defendant Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. defendant in the written statement that plaintiff and his children, the : Admittedly, the 1®' defendant did defence, though he filed his chief affidavit A registered partition was effected brother but no registered partition and his children prior to Hindu Though it was pleaded by the there was an oral partition between same is not proved by the 1 1 defendant. not enter into the witness box to prove his as D.W.1 but his evidence i eschewed. The iaw is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court Vidhyadhar IS in a case of vs. Manikrao and others^ where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that; Where the party to the suit does not appear into witness box and states his cross examination by the case set up by him is not own case on oral and does not offer himself to the other side a presumption would arose that the correct”. 19. The 2"" defendant is examined as D.W.2. A clear admission registered was not was made by D.W.2 in his evidence that under Ex.A.1 partition deed, his father got Ac.4-66 cents of land which partitioned among himself and his father. There IS no evidence on record that there was an oral partition among 1=' defendant with his children. In the case on hand, the 1*' defendant got share in the ancestral property under a registered partition deed with other coparceners i.e., his mother and brother prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the same is ancestral in nature. He can treat the said j long as a male issue (or female after Hindu Succession property as a separate property as (Amendment) Act, 2005) was not born to him treating the same as his separate property he oan deal with and alienate the same when once male or female child born to him, they get right by birth in the same property along with their father and then he ^ AIR 1999 SC 1441 w VGKR, J. sa 175 2023 I cannot treat the said property as his separate property or self-acquired property. In the case on hand, the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are children of 1"’ defendant, who born prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 itself. Admittedly, there is no partition in between the defendant qnd his children viz., plaintiff and defendant Nos.2. and 3 either prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 or after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the marriage of plaintiff was performed in the year 1997 and the marriage of 3'^'^ defendant was performed in the year 2008 and sufficient amount was given to the plaintiff and defendant and that the plaintiff is not entitled any share. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to prove the said statement. Both the Courts below are came to a concurrent finding that the plaint schedule properties are the properties that fell to the share of defendant in a registered partition deed with his mother and brother and also the property purchased by him out the income derived from the property fell to his share under Ex.A.1 registered partition deed. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 enables the daughters to exercise their coparcenary right and coparcenary is a birth right to a daughter. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance of Angadi Chandranna vs. ShankarT The facts in the aforesaid case law are there was a partition between 1®^ defendant and his two brothers by virtue of a registered defendant subsequently partition deed, dated 09.05.1986 and the 1 purchased the suit property from his elder brother by way of registered sale deed, dated 16.10.1989 and the plaintiff failed to prove from out of joint family property, the 1®* defendant purchased the suit property from his elder brother registered sale deed, dated 16.10.1989. But the facts and under a '*2025 INSC532 10 VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 circumstances involved in the case on hand concurrent finding that the plaint schedule property in between 1®* defendant Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Amendment) Act, 2005 and it 1 are both the Courts came to a property is undivided i-yi ancestral and his children either prior to Hindu or subsequent to the Hindu Succession was not divided in between 1 defendant and his children till so far. The plaint schedule property obtained by defendant in the family partition with his mother deed is an ancestral and brother under a registered partition property, the same character will continues. It is also relevant to say by that time plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are born and the r defendant is the father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. 22. In a case of Rohit Chauhan Apex Court held as follows; V. Surinder Singh and others® the "11. ....In our opinion coparcenary property means the property which consists of anoestral property and a coparcener would mean a person Who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint Hindu family and before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth interest in the coparcenary property. A coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it and has to bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births i the family. It is not static. We an one in are further of the opinion that so long, on partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be treated a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the as it to be his made moment a son is born, a coparcenary property and the a coparcener.” the (2013) 9 SCC 419 property becomes son would acquire interest in that and become ^2013 (9) SCC 419 11 VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 23. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance of Padala Prasad and others vs. Padala Anandarao and others®, wherein the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Kanpury. Hander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567, Yudhishtery. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 : AIR 1987 SC 558, Commissioner of Income Taxy.P.L. Karuppan Chettiar, ^Q93 Supp (1) SCC 580 and Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, (2008) 3 SCC 87 : [2008 (2) ICC (S.C.) 604] and matter of fact in a catena of decisions, held that “when the surviving members of the coparcenary had already partitioned their properties and become owners to the extent of their share, and all the succeeding heirs succeed to their respective shares not as a joint tenants but as tenants- in-common. The property devolves upon them not per stirpes but per capita with the right to alienate the share, particularly when the property has been partitioned and entries made in the revenue record of rights. The property, which devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own son, if that be the position then the property which devolving upon the father of the respondents on the demise of his grand-father could not be said to be HUF property”. as a The facts in the present case law are much different to the case law relied by the appellants. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance of Shasidhar and others v. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another^, wherein the Apex Court held as follows; ^ 2011(5) ALT 448 ^ AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1139 12 VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 in the instant case the High Court in first appeal against the decree i partition suit, did not deal with appellants and/or respondents in any of the submissions urged by the nor it took note of the grounds taken by the appellants in grounds of appeal nor took note of cross objections filed by plaintiffs under 0.41, R.22 of the Code and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of the settled legal principles and decided case laws applicable to the the case with issues arising in a view to find out as to whether the judgment of the trial Court can be sustained or not. Held, being the first appellate Court was, therefore, the duty of the High Court to decide it the first appeal powers conferred on it under S,96 read keeping in view the scope and with 0.41, R.31 of the Code. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn deprived them of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law." Admittedly, in the case on hand, it is undisputed fact that by the date of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 born. According to the own case of the appellants, the marriage of the plaintiff was performed in the year 1997 and the marriage of the 3'" defendant was performed in the year 2008. As plaint schedule property was acquired by father i.e., 1^' defendant by virtue of a registered partition deed, dated 22.01.2004. A specific plea the defendant in the written statement itself that the property is self-acquired property of the defendant. The plaintiff in order to prove her case relied on Ex.A.1 registered partition deed. Admittedly, notice was issued by the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit. After receipt of legal the 1"‘ defendant did not choose to issue any reply. A clear admission made by D.W.2 i.e., 2 defendant in his evidence in cross examination itself that under Ex.A.1 partition deed, his father i.e., 1®' defendant got an extent of Ac.4- 66 cents of larfd which was not partitioned among himself and his father. Admittedly, there is no oral partition or registered partition and decree of per the case of the plaintiff, the was taken by plaint schedule notice. 13 VGKR, J. sa_175_2023 partition in between 1®' defendant and his children viz., plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, the children of the defendant are born prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Though a specific plea was taken by the 1®' defendant in the written statement there was an oral partition in between him and his children, the same is not at all proved by the 1 defendant and the 1®' defendant did not enter into the witness box. St 25. In a case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others®, the 3-Judges bench of Apex Court held as follows; Resultantly, we answer the reference as under; (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-1 as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 14 VGKR, J sa_175_2023 pending proceedings for share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in final decree or in an appeal. 26. The evidence property is undivided on record clearly indicates ancestral that the plaint schedule defendant Nos.1 are none other than the children ».» - in the plaint schedule prooertv th ^ « „„,, jrrj" r” *“ appeal is liable to be dismissed. property of plaintiff and Nos.2 and 3, who and the plaintiff, defendant of defendant born oh By giving cogent to 3 entitled 1/4^^ share i to interfere with 27. In the result and circumstances of appeal. the second appeal is dismissed, case, each party do bear their Considering the facts own costs in the second As a sequel, mi stand closed. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR rv- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER - ^ To, 1. The III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, W.G. 3. One CC to Sri P. R. K. Amarendra Kumar, 4. One CC to Sri Thota Ramakoteswara 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section 6. Three C.D. Copies. , W.G. District. District. Advocate [OPUC] Rao, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of A.P. Cnr '1 HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 0 ■ JUDGMENT SA.No.175 of 2023 I" 21 MAY 2025 ^ ^ . Current sieciion . ^ DISMISSING THE S.A WITHOUT COSTS / 000^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 175 OF 2023 Between; 1. Ganisetti Sitaramayya, S/o. Paparao Hindu aged 61 years, Male Cultivation, Resident of Palapu Street, D.No.3-26/1 Kalla Village, Kalla Mandal, BJCJC. 2. Ganisetti Ravi Prasad S/o. Sitaramayya aged 45 years Male Cultivation, Resident of Palapu Street D.No.3-26/1 Kalla Village,Kalla Mandal, BJCJC. 3. Gokisetti Padmavathi, W/o. Veera Swamy Hindu Aged 38 years, House Wife Female, R/o. Komallipudi Village , Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District. ...APPELLANTS AND Ambati Lakshmi Kumari, W/o.Naga Venkata Seshagiri Rao, Chanamilli House Wife Female, R/o. Chanamilli Village D.No. 48/3B, Nidamarru Mandal, TPG JCJC ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Decree of the Court of the III Addl. District Judge, Bhimqavaram, in A.S No.27 of 2018 Dated. 17.03.2023 Preferred against the Decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram in O.S. No.4 of 2012 dated.20.04.2018. DECREE ; This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.R.K. Amarender Kumar, Advocate for the ■ Appellants and of Sri T. Rama Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the Respondent.^ «r> rr*i| Court doth orders and Decree as follows ; - r\ r / That the Second Appeal be and here by is Dismissed. ^ ^fiat the each party be and here by are directed to bear their own costs /r* in the Second Appeal. .. "# # * •• ¥- Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r % SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, (with Records) 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, W.G. District. 3. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr 7T ■A HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 -v DECREE SA.No.175 of 2023 ^ 2 t MAY 2025 g ^ Current section ^ Ni^SPATCt;^-^ DISMISSING THE S.A WITHOUT COSTS